If Yugoslavia manages to remain neutral in WWII, does it still break up several decades later?

CaliGuy

Banned
If Yugoslavia manages to remain neutral in WWII (such as if France doesn't fall in WWII), does it still break up several decades (or more) later (like it did at the start of the 1990s in our TL)? Or does Yugoslavia remain united indefinitely in this TL?

Any thoughts on this?
 

Deleted member 1487

If Yugoslavia manages to remain neutral in WWII (such as if France doesn't fall in WWII), does it still break up several decades (or more) later (like it did at the start of the 1990s in our TL)? Or does Yugoslavia remain united indefinitely in this TL?

Any thoughts on this?
I'd say it probably collapses sooner. There were was a lot of bad blood during the Nazi occupation that was exploited by the occupier (technically occupiers, as Italy and Hungary had their shares of the country) and even during the invasion there were elements of the military that refused to fight for the government. It seems then that the strong man Tito was what kept the country together and the only reason it really formed was out of the ashes of WW1 and on the power of the victors as well as fear of external domination if they didn't form (mainly from Italy IIRC); in power the nation was largely treated as Greater Serbia by the ruling class, so there was a lot of dissatisfaction with the situation that helped undermine the country when the war came.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yugoslavia#Kingdom_of_Yugoslavia
On 20 June 1928 Serb deputy Puniša Račić shot at five members of the opposition Croatian Peasant Party in the National Assembly resulting in the death of two deputies on the spot and that of leader Stjepan Radić a few weeks later.[6] On 6 January 1929 King Alexander I suspended the constitution, banned national political parties, assumed executive power and renamed the country Yugoslavia.[7] He hoped to curb separatist tendencies and mitigate nationalist passions. He imposed a new constitution and relinquished his dictatorship in 1931.[8]

Alexander attempted to create a centralised Yugoslavia. He decided to abolish Yugoslavia's historic regions, and new internal boundaries were drawn for provinces or banovinas. The banovinas were named after rivers. Many politicians were jailed or kept under police surveillance. The effect of Alexander's dictatorship was to further alienate the non-Serbs from the idea of unity.[9] During his reign the flags of Yugoslav nations were banned. Communist ideas were banned also.

The king was assassinated in Marseille during an official visit to France in 1934 by Vlado Chernozemski, an experienced marksman from Ivan Mihailov's Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organization with the cooperation of the Ustaše, a Croatian fascist revolutionary organisation. Alexander was succeeded by his eleven-year-old son Peter II and a regency council headed by his cousin, Prince Paul.

The international political scene in the late 1930s was marked by growing intolerance between the principal figures, by the aggressive attitude of the totalitarian regimes and by the certainty that the order set up after World War I was losing its strongholds and its sponsors were losing their strength. Supported and pressured by Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany, Croatian leader Vladko Maček and his party managed the creation of the Banovina of Croatia (Autonomous Region with significant internal self-government) in 1939. The agreement specified that Croatia was to remain part of Yugoslavia, but it was hurriedly building an independent political identity in international relations. The entire kingdom was to be federalised but World War II stopped the fulfillment of those plans.

Prince Paul submitted to the fascist pressure and signed the Tripartite Pact in Vienna on 25 March 1941, hoping to still keep Yugoslavia out of the war. But this was at the expense of popular support for Paul's regency. Senior military officers were also opposed to the treaty and launched a coup d'état when the king returned on 27 March. Army General Dušan Simović seized power, arrested the Vienna delegation, exiled Paul, and ended the regency, giving 17-year-old King Peter full powers. Hitler then decided to attack Yugoslavia on 6 April 1941, followed immediately by an invasion of Greece where Mussolini had previously been repelled.[10]

There was no option to stay neutral other than join the Axis (as Hitler made it clear join or face invasion; if you join you don't have to fight, but if you don't we invade), which the Regent Paul did, but that doomed his government and neutrality. They had been in talks with the Soviets too, but the Nazis came before that got far as I understand it. So for neutrality you'd have to have the coup stopped during the war and then a defection to the Allies in 1944. Still, it is likely that by trying to buy off Hitler the government would fracture and without the civil war during WW2, Stalin especially pushing for communism in the region would probably help fracture the nation into a civil war post-WW2. Events, internal and external, would just put too much pressure on an already failing state.
 
It could still break up, but it's far less likely to (and the break-up, if it happens, is less likely to be violent).

If Yugoslavia breaks its neutrality by joining the Allies in the late stage of the war, then the Royal government might be the one to take Zara and Istria instead of the Communists, further shoring up its position with Croats and Slovenes (the Slovenes never really presented a problem, but hey).

But that is just a minor factor. There are two major factors:
-By avoiding Yugoslavia's participation in WW2, you'd also avoid the genocidal reign of the Ustashe, the Chetnik massacres, and a few other events - things that, in OTL, greatly contributed to radicalization and inter-ethnic hatred in Yugoslavia.
-The Royal Yugoslav government also started federalizing shortly before the war, under the so-called Cvetković-Maček agreement. And - judging by its beginnings, anyway - this form of federalization would be a more stable one than the Communist-imposed federal divisions of OTL.
 
Last edited:

Deleted member 1487

It could still break up, but it's far less likely to (and the break-up, if it happens, is less likely to be violent).

By avoiding Yugoslavia's participation in WW2, you'd also avoid the genocidal reign of the Ustashe, the Chetnik massacres, and a few other events - things that, in OTL, greatly contributed to radicalization and inter-ethnic hatred in Yugoslavia.

The Royal Yugoslav government also started federalizing shortly before the war, under the so-called Cvetković-Maček agreement. And - judging by its beginnings, anyway - this form of federalization would be a more stable one than the Communist-imposed federal divisions of OTL.
Sure, but once the Axis pact threat comes along, and the only way that isn't coming along is if Nazi Germany screws up earlier and changes history by bogging down in France, or WW2 doesn't happen, which changes everything.
 
Sure, but once the Axis pact threat comes along, and the only way that isn't coming along is if Nazi Germany screws up earlier and changes history by bogging down in France, or WW2 doesn't happen, which changes everything.

I'm not sure about of Stalin organizing a Greek-style civil war. You may be right that it constitutes a serious risk; but events could also conspire against it. In any case, OP seems to be working under the assumption that there is no break-up during or immediately after WW2.
 

Deleted member 1487

I'm not sure about of Stalin organizing a Greek-style civil war. You may be right that it constitutes a serious risk; but events could also conspire against it. In any case, OP seems to be working under the assumption that there is no break-up during or immediately after WW2.
Not saying it would be intentional, he'd just be pushing his faction, which with existing internal pressure, might result in resentments boiling over around political as well as ethnic tensions.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
I'd say it probably collapses sooner. There were was a lot of bad blood during the Nazi occupation that was exploited by the occupier (technically occupiers, as Italy and Hungary had their shares of the country) and even during the invasion there were elements of the military that refused to fight for the government. It seems then that the strong man Tito was what kept the country together and the only reason it really formed was out of the ashes of WW1 and on the power of the victors as well as fear of external domination if they didn't form (mainly from Italy IIRC); in power the nation was largely treated as Greater Serbia by the ruling class, so there was a lot of dissatisfaction with the situation that helped undermine the country when the war came.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yugoslavia#Kingdom_of_Yugoslavia


There was no option to stay neutral other than join the Axis (as Hitler made it clear join or face invasion; if you join you don't have to fight, but if you don't we invade), which the Regent Paul did, but that doomed his government and neutrality. They had been in talks with the Soviets too, but the Nazis came before that got far as I understand it. So for neutrality you'd have to have the coup stopped during the war and then a defection to the Allies in 1944. Still, it is likely that by trying to buy off Hitler the government would fracture and without the civil war during WW2, Stalin especially pushing for communism in the region would probably help fracture the nation into a civil war post-WW2. Events, internal and external, would just put too much pressure on an already failing state.
Couldn't Yugoslavia remain neutral if France avoids falling during WWII?

Also, wouldn't Soviet attempts to spread Communism to Yugoslavia be opposed by Britain, France, Germany, and Italy in the absence of WWII/the Fall of France?

It could still break up, but it's far less likely to (and the break-up, if it happens, is less likely to be violent).

If Yugoslavia breaks its neutrality by joining the Allies in the late stage of the war, then the Royal government might be the one to take Zara and Istria instead of the Communists, further shoring up its position with Croats and Slovenes (the Slovenes never really presented a problem, but hey).

But that is just a minor factor. There are two major factors:
-By avoiding Yugoslavia's participation in WW2, you'd also avoid the genocidal reign of the Ustashe, the Chetnik massacres, and a few other events - things that, in OTL, greatly contributed to radicalization and inter-ethnic hatred in Yugoslavia.
-The Royal Yugoslav government also started federalizing shortly before the war, under the so-called Cvetković-Maček agreement. And - judging by its beginnings, anyway - this form of federalization would be a more stable one than the Communist-imposed federal divisions of OTL.
What exactly was the problem with the post-WWII Communist-imposed federalization of Yugoslavia?
 
Couldn't Yugoslavia remain neutral if France avoids falling during WWII?

Also, wouldn't Soviet attempts to spread Communism to Yugoslavia be opposed by Britain, France, Germany, and Italy in the absence of WWII/the Fall of France?


What exactly was the problem with the post-WWII Communist-imposed federalization of Yugoslavia?
Ethnic based divisions.
 
If Yugoslavia manages to remain neutral in WWII (such as if France doesn't fall in WWII), does it still break up several decades (or more) later (like it did at the start of the 1990s in our TL)? Or does Yugoslavia remain united indefinitely in this TL?

Any thoughts on this?

Less likely to break up, in the absence of the violence and disruption of the war.

But bear in mind that separatism has been quite strong in Europe. E.g. the Scottish Nationalists, the Velvet Divorce in Czechoslovakia, Catalan separatism in Spain. Yugoslavia was a recent and artificial creation; how likely is it that it would not have a spasm of separatism sufficient to rupture its fragile nationality?
 
What exactly was the problem with the post-WWII Communist-imposed federalization of Yugoslavia?

Part of the problem was that it was not even loosely based on ethnic borders. And - arguably - it shafted not even one (which would have been bad enough), but both of Yugoslavia's two biggest nationalities.
 
Well, it's likely it will break apart sooner or later, but, not like it did in OTL. The reason is that ethnic hatred, already present in 1939, was seriously strengthened by events during WWII. Tito managed to put a lid on that and keep it to a simmer, but it was all there waiting to explode again. If Yugoslavia breezes through WWII with its groups not going at each other's throat on a grand scale (some low level of strife seems inherent), then maybe they will part ways later on all the same - but less violently.
 
I'd argue more likely. The Kingdom of Yugoslavia was a multiethnic state that was heavily dominated by the Serbs. One of the main factors of Yugoslavia's OTL collapse was economic inequalities between the regions, which is likely to be worse ITTL without a Communist government actively trying to counteract this through redistribution. Finally, assuming that the Soviets are able to reach Bulgaria and Hungary, the Soviets are going to be sending supplies to pro-Soviet groups in the country. All in all, not a recipe for long-term stability.
 
I'd argue more likely. The Kingdom of Yugoslavia was a multiethnic state that was heavily dominated by the Serbs. One of the main factors of Yugoslavia's OTL collapse was economic inequalities between the regions, which is likely to be worse ITTL without a Communist government actively trying to counteract this through redistribution. Finally, assuming that the Soviets are able to reach Bulgaria and Hungary, the Soviets are going to be sending supplies to pro-Soviet groups in the country. All in all, not a recipe for long-term stability.
Actually if Hungary and Bulgaria end up in the Soviet sphere, the USSR might back Hungarian and Bulgarian territorial ambitions on Yugoslavia.
 
Top